Morrison requested pulling items B. 1) and 2) under the Consent
Calendar.There was also a board order
amending the Animal Regulation Task Force Report and a letter regarding the
MWMC matter under Commissioners Business.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ernest Nisser, Eugene,
discussed a matter with the Sheriff’s Office.

Dwyer asked him what he wanted.

Nisser said he is talking to Alex Gardner to see what the District
Attorney’s office could do.He didn’t
know what the Board could do, but when the case first happened, he asked
Sorenson (his commissioner) for help.

3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

None.

4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

None.

5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

a. Letter to Metro Wastewater

Stewart stated he
read the letter and there was a part he wasn’t comfortable with:where MWMC would obtain the $200,000.He didn’t believe that MWMC has committed to
providing the money.He received an
e-mail from Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, stating the
lobbyists were not comfortable with asking for the money in Washington, D.C.,
so the region or Coburg would have to come up with the money.

Van Vactor suggested
that Lane County talk to its partners to see if the community could raise
$200,000.

Morrison was
concerned about the timing because she wanted it included on the United Front
trip.

Dwyer said they
could work on the letter and bring it back to the Board this afternoon.

Dwyer wanted to add
the Architect Report on the LCARA facility expansion to the website as an
addendum to the LCARA report.

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

Morrison presented Van Vactor
with a trophy for his Pinot Noir wine--an award winner at AOC.

7. PUBLIC WORKS

a. ORDER 06-1-18-1/In
the Matter of Approving a Project Design Concept and Acquiring Fee or Other
Interests in Portions of Certain Real Properties For Improvement of Marcola
Road, Phase III, MP 11.49 to 16.08, Based on the Findings in Exhibit B; and
Authorizing Staff to Prepare a Right-of-Way Plan Necessary to Construct the
Road, Pursue All Necessary Planning Actions, Acquire Right-of-Way and Prepare
Plans and Specifications for Improvement of Said Road.

Bill Morgan, Public Works,
explained that this is a Phase III project for Marcola Road which is a rural
major collector, connecting the Mohawk Valley with the Springfield and Eugene
urban area.He noted the first phase
was performed in 1993, the second in 2000.The third phase was to honor the commitment to modernize and provide
safety improvements for this stretch of road.He recalled there was public input during the first two phases and they
narrowed the design concept.He noted
the design concept presented today reflects the new design features the Board
approved two years ago.

Morgan explained there were two
design options going out to the public for the comment period.He said they met with the residents in the
Mohawk area and throughout the public process there was majority support for
the project.He indicated that they had
a Roads Advisory Committee Public Hearing on March 30, 2005 and various
residents attended, providing oral and written testimony.He said there were concerns about right of
way taking and the proximity to an old railroad bed they wanted to
preserve.He said they had a series of
discussions with the impacted neighbors and came up with design Option 3.He said it shifts the alignment slightly
east to preserve the railroad grade, while maintaining a 55-mile per hour
design speed.He said the replacement
and widening of the Shotgun Creek Bridge is not recommended at this time
because it rates almost 80 out of 100 in structural capacity. He said in order
to replace the bridge they would have to spend an extra $800,000.To widen it would be another $200,000.He said what they are presenting in Option
3, is keeping the existing bridge, and do the signing and striping and any
other safety improvements at the Shotgun Creek Bridge to alert drivers of the
driving conditions.

Morgan said they had a 30-day
public testimony and two people provided supplemental information in the Board
packet.

Morrison asked if the
conditions from the Cittys’ were incorporated in Option 3.

Morgan said that the Cittys
don’t own the property yet.He said
they were committed to working with any property owner on access, drainage and
easement items.

Morrison thought they were
moving in the right direction.

Stewart was supportive and
hoped they could save the trees.

Dwyer thought saving the trees
would be a good part of the design.He
supported the project and working with the community and their concerns.

MOTION: to approve ORDER
06-1-18-1.

Stewart MOVED, Morrison
SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. ORDER 06-1-18-2/In
the Matter of Establishing a Nuisance Abatement Program in the Waste Management
Division.

Jeff Bishop, Waste Management,
stated this was a proposal for a new program in the Waste Management Division
to address nuisance properties and illegal dumping.He said the proposal is to add the program into their base budget
for Fiscal Year 06/07.He indicated
that the program would be staffed with one FTE.That person would patrol for illegal dump sites, coordinate clean
up and work with the Land Management Division to address nuisance property
enforcement.He stated this went to
Finance and Audit.He said if this were
to be approved, it would be for approval of a job classification developed by
HR.A separate item would be an
amendment to Lane Code that would establish authority to enforce for
littering.He noted they could use
existing Lane Code Chapter 5.He said
staff’s recommendation for funding is to cover it from the Waste Management
Enterprise Fund in the Fiscal Year 06/07, with cost tracking to determine
whether to direct them to establish a surcharge.He said they are still waiting for the Fin Plan audit results,
which will further clarify things.They
would report on that with the details.

Bishop indicated that the
funding options for future years could either include a per-load surcharge or a
per-ton surcharge.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works,
explained this would be funded out of tipping fees, but they would establish it
as a program in the Waste Management Division so they could track the costs of
the program.

Bishop said if they were to
come back with the Lane Code amendment, it would authorize enforcement on
designated County properties.He added
the Chapter 5 language would permit them to work with the property owners to
get voluntary compliance.

Morrison was supportive of
this.

Stewart supported this.He thought Parks could provide additional
eyes and help work toward solving the problem.He believed they needed this.

MOTION: to approve ORDER
06-1-18-2.

Stewart MOVED, Sorenson
SECONDED.

Sorenson appreciated the
division responding to constituent issues. He said they should get the word out
to Lane County’s work force to report any nuisance issues they see.

VOTE: 5-0.

c. EIGHTH READING AND DELIBERATION
Ordinance PA 1190/In the Matter of Adopting Amendments to the Junction
City Comprehensive Plan to Expand the Urban Growth Boundary to Include the
Subject Property (a Portion of Tax Lot 1300 and a Portion of the Juniper
Connector) and Redesignate the Portion of the Tax Lot From
"Agricultural" Land To "Commercial", and Adopting Savings
and Severability Clauses (File PA 02-5778; Safeway). (NBA & PM 8/27/03,
9/10/03, 1/14/04, 7/14/04, 1/12/05, 7/13/05 & 9/13/05)

Jerry Kendall, Land Management,
stated that staff recommends rolling this to a ninth reading on July 19.

Green asked what the problem
was.

Kendall indicated there were
three items to clear up since the original second reading and hearing. He said
they had a farm management agreement that waived the common law right to object
to nearby farm uses.He said that
Safeway could actually do that.He
noted the last thing was the property line adjustment in which they verbally
told him that there were multiple property owners involved to sign off on this.

MOTION: to approve an
Eighth Reading and Setting a Ninth Reading and Deliberation for July 19, 2006.

Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Approval of Minutes:

February 23, 2005, Goal Setting, 9:00 a.m.

January 4, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

B. Children and Families

1) ORDER 06-1-18-3/In
the Matter of Approving the Submittal of a Grant to the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office on Violence Against Women in the Amount of $350,000 over Two
Years for Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange of Children by and Between
Parents in Cases Involving Domestic Violence; and Delegating Authority to the
County Administrator to Sign Grant Documents.

2) ORDER 06-1-18-4/In
the Matter of Approving the Submittal of a Grant to the U.S. Department of
Justice Office on Violence Against Women in the Amount of $750,000 over Three
Years for Education and Technical Assistance to End Violence Against Women with
Disabilities; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign
Grant Documents.

C. Management Services

1) ORDER 06-1-18-5/In
the Matter of Appointing One (1) New Member to the Lane County Human Rights
Advisory Committee.

2) ORDER 06-1-18-6/In
the Matter of Revising the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee Bylaws.

D. Public Safety

1) ORDER 06-1-18-7/In
the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute
Easement Agreement Between Giustina Land & Timber Co., Eugene Water &
Electric Board and Lane County for Road Access to Mt. Hagan Communication
Facility.

E. Public Works

1) ORDER 06-1-18-8/In
the Matter of Giving Direction to Public Works Staff With Regard to Responding
to Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Involving Hazards or Potential Hazards on
Local Access Roads.

B. 1) and 2) Morrison
explained with the first item, she was not opposed to applying for either
one.Her concern was the end result for
the grants they could receive.She
noted the second item was just a concept proposal.She said on page 3, what concerned her most was that they had a
prior grant from July 2000 to October 2005 and in that grant cycle, there were
specific things to be accomplished with children in a domestic violence
situation.She said the evaluation
activities required by the funder show the positive impact on both the
custodial and the visiting parent.She
added the evaluation also indicated that awareness of Kid’s First services was
low among critical community partners.Her concern was that these community partners had been sitting around the
table for 27 years.She asked how they
could not know this existed.She noted
in applying for a grant, they want letters of support.She added in the new grant application, they
would be establishing a consultation committee.She thought these were the same people who sat around the table.

Diana Avery, Children and
Families, said when they talk about critical community partners, they need to
get more involved in the supervised parenting time and safe exchange in cases
involving domestic violence.She said
they have to have more substantive conversations with the Department of Human
Services Child Welfare.

Morrison indicated they
had identified that in prior years and in prior grants as a goal to
accomplish.She asked if, in the past
five years under this grant, they hadn’t been able to do that.

Avery responded that the
old program was putting together funding over the past five years that was
supporting the service.She commented
that the funding had been grant only and it was difficult to rely on one stream
of funding to support the programs.

Morrison noted the grant
was $750,000 over three years and the first year was $200,000 for
planning.She thought that, out of the
three years of the grant, the people that need the service would probably not
get it because they are going to be spending the money on planning.

Avery indicated that was
the requirement of the funder.She said
the needs assessment had been done but they needed to make sure they are
looking into the rural areas of the County.

Morrison didn’t oppose
applying for the grant.She wanted more
money to go to direct services instead of planning.

Sorenson asked about the
impact of domestic violence cases not being handled.

Amber Berry, Domestic
Violence Committee, stated there is a concern in the community that there are
no services for them.

Sorenson asked if there
was any money from the grant pending before the Board to establish funding for
public safety or legal aid or other organizations that deal with abused
women.He asked what statistical
information they could provide to the Board to show this was a problem in the
community.

Alicia Hays, Children and
Families, said they would do the research and e-mail it to the Board and come
back to discuss it.

Sorenson asked for the
number of restraining orders, number of people on Parole and Probation, number
of police reports, assault 4 cases, and comparatives to other communities for
urban and rural communities.He wanted
to know the number of cases by the Domestic Violence Clinic a year ago to
now.He wanted to know if they were
meeting their responsibility.He also
wanted to know about people with disabilities and how they are responding.

Green explained that the
Department of Children and Families doesn’t get any money from the general
fund.He was okay with them getting
planning dollars.He commented that
they do need to go to training conferences and have the data to ensure they are
providing services that people actually need.He wanted to have the agenda team schedule a work session so they could
get the information out on what the problem is.He wanted to know who the critical community partners are and
what instrument was used to do the evaluations.

MOTION: to approve
the Consent Calendar.

Morrison MOVED, Green
SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES

a. WORK SESSION AND DISCUSSION
Process for Selling County Owned Real Property.

Jeff Turk, Management Services,
recalled when a sale item was brought to the Board that involved multiple
offers, the Board wanted a report back on the sale process with private sales
and multiple offers for County property.He explained there are two methods in how the County disposes of tax
foreclosed properties.He said the
first is a Sheriff’s Sale.He noted it is
dictated by statute that says when a property has an assessed value of over
$5,000 (or is suitable for the placement of a dwelling) it must first be
offered at a Sheriff’s Sale.He said
the property manager comes to the Board and sets a sale date and the Board
would set a minimum bid, terms and conditions and the sale would be held.At that sale the properties could deviate
from the terms set by the Board.

With regard to a private sale,
Turk said there are two different ways that they occur with County
properties.He noted the statute states
that once a property has been offered at a Sheriff’s Sale--and doesn’t sell at
that sale-- then the County could do a private sale with public notice.Once it has been through an auction, they
couldn’t sell it for less than 15% of what the minimum bid was at the Sheriff’s
Sale.He explained a private sale is a
direct negotiation between a potential buyer and the County.He said the other way a private sale occurs
is for properties that have an assessed value of under $5,000 and are
unsuitable for placement of a dwelling.He said they tend to be odds and ends and would only have value to an
adjoining owner.He indicated that the
statutes state that they may publish notice in the paper before they conduct a
private sale.He said the County policy
had always been to first publish public notice of the private sales before
bringing them to the Board.He said he
sends out letters to all adjoining owners of a particular property.

Turk indicated that sometimes
there are timing issues where he will receive multiple offers on a
property.He said it usually occurs
after a Sheriff’s Sale.He noted where
the timing and the interest are the same, he allows parties to make offers and
counter-offers because it is a private sale.He said it sometimes happens when he is negotiating with a party on the
property; he forwards the matter to the Board and there is a two-week process
from the time he writes a memo until the matter gets to the Board.During that interim, someone might come
forward and express an interest in the property.Since he cannot legally accept offers for the County (only the
Board could do that), he is obligated to let the Board know he has another
offer.

Green thought Turk needed to
set a clear expectation of a timeline for the offer and cut it off.

Turk said his recommendation to
the Board is that he needs to develop a process that either allows the
department director or the property management office to not allow an offer.

MOTION: to approve Option
B, authorizing the department director and the property manager officer to set
a cut off date for when counter offers will be received when multiple bidders
are involved.

Green MOVED.

Van Vactor said they can’t stop
people from showing up at Public Comment on the date the matter is sent to the
Board for approval.He added it would
be up to the Board to say they wouldn’t accept any offers.

Stewart said if someone comes
to the Board on their own, (not through Turk), they would have to tell them no.He wanted to set a date for the last day
Turk would accept multiple offers and send it to the Board with his
recommendation and not accept something after the fact.

Morrison thought there was
overlap with the options. She didn’t think there should be any additional
offers accepted after a timeline is set and they shouldn’t take something at
the last hour, even if it is more.She
said people should have an opportunity to do it within a process and if they
miss the deadline, it is the buyer’s fault not the Board’s.She didn’t think one option would cover
everything.She thought Turk should
move forward with all four options and they would become part of the new
policy.

MOTION: to move forward
with all four options to become part of the new policy in Lane Manual.

Morrison MOVED.

Sorenson asked if Turk had
considered raising the $5,000 cut-off to a higher number for administrative
fees and saving money.

Turk said the numbers were in
the statute.He said they could
possibly change that amount the next legislative session.He noted that ODOT has a $5,000 limit too.

Dwyer said he liked the way
they sell surplus equipment.He said
they use a sealed bid.

Turk indicated that a sealed
bid is an option.

Morrison indicated her motion
was to direct staff to work on these different options.Then it would go to Policies and Procedures
for review on the drafting of the language.She added that after Policies and Procedures makes a decision it would
come back to the Board.

Dwyer wanted to know when the
different things apply and under what circumstances, so they have consistency
in applying the rules in a fair and concise manner.

Turk said when they are dealing
with a small property that might only be of value to an adjoining owner, there
are land use issues involved.He said
there could be illegal partitions.

Dwyer said to draft policies
and incorporate all of the concepts and define when they are applicable.Then it will go to Policies and Procedures
and and then brought to the Board.

There was no motion.

10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

None.

11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Stewart reported that he and Morrison went to Pendleton to attend
Strengthening Rural Families.He said
they came back with ideas.He said they
have a team working on the earned income tax credit.

Green announced he would be out of the office next week to attend a NACo
meeting in Chandler, Arizona.

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per
ORS 192.660

Per ORS 192.660 (2)(d) for the purpose of deliberations with labor
negotiators and per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with
counsel on litigation.

13. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no
further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting into Executive
Session at 10:50 a.m.